Search Ideas
1824 ideas match your query.:
Just returning the bike doesn’t necessarily make him whole. Maybe he lost revenues during the time he couldn’t use his bike.
Maybe you could simply pay her the price of the book plus interest plus a fee for the inconvenience. Plus some ‘deterrence fee’ so that most people don’t even think of doing it to begin with.
Duplicate of #1386. Repeating an argument that has outstanding criticisms doesn’t address the criticisms. You can address the criticisms or revise the argument or abandon the argument.
Not sure that’s extortion but yes, generally speaking, people have the right to use force to prevent and address the arbitrary in social life (#1345).
Yeah. And if he takes it against your will and replaces it with a brand new bike it’s still theft.
There's this nice bit in Man, Economy & State where Rothbard explains that durable goods can be broken down into their unit services (not sure that's the term) and that all durable goods get used up as they provide service.
So I guess someone would reduce the serviceable lifespan of the bike by using it during the times that you aren't using it.
It’s about value not physical scarcity. If you only steal it while I’m asleep and return it before I wake up and want to use it it’s still theft.
‘Couriers who jump start their careers by stealing bicycles wouldn’t exist.’
I doubt it.
You just say that without any reasoning.
They are creating some but also stealing lots. You could steal a bicycle to become a courier and create value as a courier, but you still shouldn’t steal the bicycle in the first place. And if the thief complained about not being able to create value because it’s illegal to steal bicycles, everyone would rightly laugh at him. It’s his responsibility to find win/win solutions with people, not leech off others in the name of ‘creating value’.
LLM coders should come up with something else that doesn’t steal value.
I should say, the issue of LLMs isn’t entirely clear cut since they don’t actually redistribute any text. So their output may not be a copyright violation in the original sense. Could maybe be a derivative work of the training data though (see #1322).
There are a lot of open legal questions about AI. See https://hawleytroxell.com/insights/how-i-really-feel-about-chatgpt-from-an-ip-lawyers-perspective/. For example:
Copyright owners and patent holders have no recourse against infringing, illegal AI output since the law has not yet caught up to create a remedy. So if I ask ChatGPT to write me some Star Wars fan fiction and I then place that content on the internet or sell it on Amazon, Disney has no remedy—except to sue me somehow, because they are Disney and have a lot of money.
And:
I cannot register copyrights in content authored by an AI because I am not the author, and the AI cannot register its own copyrights because it lacks personhood.
When is it "my own words?"
When you come up with it yourself. Like are you doing right now with your messages (to which you own the copyright, btw, unless the Veritula terms disagree, I’d have to double check).
What's "original"?
Drawing stick figures is not, writing down a completely new text with new concepts is. There are some gray areas but again (#1403), that doesn’t mean copyright doesn’t make sense as a whole.
Why 70 years after the author's death?
That seems excessive to me too, but you can thank lobbyists for that. Doesn’t mean copyright doesn’t make sense as a whole.
Copyright is a well-known law in widespread use.
Ignorance of the law is not generally a legal defense, afaik.
If it were, any criminal could simply claim he didn’t know what he was doing was illegal. Which would be arbitrary.
Which brings us, again, to the purpose of the law: to prevent and address the arbitrary in social life (#1345).
Copyright doesn’t prevent people from talking about someone else’s text in their own words, as much as they want.
No. Copyright never prevents consenting parties from sharing text freely as long as everyone agrees that that’s ok (see #1330).